Menu

Tag Archives: BRD9757

The current study aimed to examine whether classification of couples in which one partner has an alcohol problem is similar to that reported in the general couples literature. and the prediction of treatment outcomes. However, BRD9757 there are several gaps in the literature on couple subtypes. First, research has not examined whether couple typology at the start of treatment predicts treatment response. Second, although some typologies have been derived from observational data about couple interactions, these data have come from assessment of couples during an experimental task, not therapy (e.g., Gottman, 1993; Sevier, Eldridge, Jones, Doss, & Christensen, 2008). Finally, in couples where one partner meets criteria for an alcohol use disorder (AUD), evidence suggests that the presentation of such couples differs from non-alcoholic couples. For example, alcoholic HSPA1 couples are likely to exhibit greater levels of negative behaviors (i.e., be more critical and disagreeable) than non-alcoholic couples (Jacob & Krahn, 1988). However, it is unclear whether such differences are attributable to the presence of distress in these couples or are unique to alcoholic couples. The aim of the current study was to expand the literature examining couple typologies to couples seeking treatment for the alcohol problem of one partner. Alcohol Behavioral Couple Therapy Behavioral couple therapy (BCT) for alcohol problems has garnered considerable empirical support regarding its effectiveness over more traditional, individual-focused treatment approaches. A significant body of research has shown that BCT produces greater reductions in identified patient drinking when compared to individual treatment (O’Farrell & Clements, 2012; Powers, Vedel, & Emmelkamp, 2008). Although BCT for alcohol problems has strong empirical support, O’Farrell (in O’Farrell & Clements, 2012) has pointed out that such studies have not been conducted in marital and family therapy (MFT) clinical practice settings. The current study examined whether classifications of couples in the general couples literature apply to couples entering alcohol treatment with the goal of providing information for MFT clinicians and researchers regarding couples where one partner has a problem with alcohol. Alcohol Behavioral Couple Therapy (ABCT) is an adaptation of general BCT principles and posits drinking occurs within the interactional context of intimate relationships. Partners may behave in ways that reinforce drinking behavior, by either providing positive consequences for drinking (e.g., increased intimacy during intoxication) or protecting the drinker from negative consequences (e.g., the significant other calling in sick to work for his or her hungover spouse). Thus, much like the perspective BRD9757 of BCT on general relationship distress, the theory behind ABCT is that increasing the overall rate of positive reinforcement in a couple will serve to reduce the reliance on alcohol and break established patterns of reinforcement for drinking. To date no ABCT studies have examined the presentation of couples based on observation of couple communication and interaction. One strategy for capturing clinically useful information employed in the general couples research has been to define typologies of relationships. Couple Typology Research As the measurement of couple interactions often results in a multitude of variables and constructs (see Heyman, 2001), some researchers have suggested utilizing classification methods that use a couple-oriented approach rather than a variable-oriented as a promising strategy for bridging gaps among theory, research, and practice (Olson, 1981). Fisher & Ransom (1995) extended Olson’s ideas, arguing that typologies of couples are underappreciated as such classifications provide ways to integrate a variety of information into clinically useful descriptions. In a nonclinical community sample, Gottman (1993) identified distinct couple BRD9757 types based on positive and negative behavioral data collected during a laboratory interaction task. Couples labeled as volatile, validator, or avoider were more stable (i.e. less likely to have divorced or considered divorce after four years) than hostile and hostile-detached couples. Although differences in affect expression were found between hostile and hostile-detached couples, these distinctions were not thought to be as important as differences among stable couples. The three types of stable couples were differentiated by their expression of positive and negative affect during their interactions. Although maintaining a greater ratio of positive to negative behaviors overall compared to unstable couples, volatile couples expressed high levels of both positive and negative affect, validator couples expressed moderate levels of positive and negative affect, and avoider couples expressed low levels of both BRD9757 positive and negative affect. A number of other investigations into typologies of.